Re:When was the last time 98% of scientists got something im...
by ZeroGravitas on Thursday March 10, 2022 @02:22AM
(#30624036)
The lead one at least is untrue, assuming you are talking about adding it to gasoline. They knew it was dangerous at the time, just business reasons overrode the scientists who complained, and other scientists were on the payroll and so lied.
Another interesting parallel is that they actually had a better alternative to addihg lead at the time, but the industry vetoed it because it was also a fuel in its own right and threatened their monopoly.
- Fourier theory (turned out to be right)
- ATM (small packets turned out to be bad)
- ulcers (most common cause turned out to be bacteria)
- covid (turned out to be aerosol transmission)
- radium, lead, asbestos... (turned out to be very dangerous)
- some cancers (turned out to be virally caused)
- malthusian equilibrium (largely overcome by technology)
Some heavily funded things:
- ML/deep learning (not actually a panacea)
- blockchain (also not a panacea; probably mostly harmful)
Some heavily used things:
- Wi-Fi and cellular (non-ionizing radiation can actually damage DNA)
- SMTP for email (largely ruined by spam)
- the internet (turns out security is important?)
- C language, current microprocessors, OS, browsers (endless security flaws)